(CORRECTION) There Is No Problem Being Sworn Into Certain Things

[creationliberty]

This is something that has been bothering me for a couple years now because I know that, early on in my ministry, I had taught that we are not to swear oaths, which is what Jesus taught us:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
-Mat 5:33-37

In that day, there were Jews that swore both serious and casual oaths of things they would do, and they would swear unto God or other such holy things of God to mark those things as important. However, what Jesus is saying is that, for a righteous man, his 'yes' or 'no' to a matter is all that is required for him to keep his word, and therefore, any more words added to such a matter would come of evil, to try and paint a false appearance.

So what many Jews would do was take seriously those matters sworn unto God, but in other matters in which they did not swear unto God, they would not care to keep their word, which made them hypocrites and deceivers. It's very similar to when someone says, "Oh yeah, I PROMISE I'll get it done," instead of just saying "I'll get it done." They think the "promise" (i.e. an oath) means that they have to keep it, while if they do not have an oath, then they do not have to take their word seriously.

Thus, there is a difference between the words of those who fear God and those who do not, and therefore, I may have made an error in my understanding of these verses, teaching that it was against God's Word that, for example, a police officer would be sworn into his office of duty, or a military man may be sworn in as a soldier. As I see it now more clearly, there is no sin committed in such things where they take an oath to fulfill their duties in a solemn manner, and I am sorry if I have caused anyone undue grief or stress because I taught otherwise.

There is also no sin involved in being sworn into a courtroom. When they bring you up and say, "Do you swear to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?" The word 'swear' generally means "to affirm," and therefore, what you are doing is affirming to tell the truth in a very serious circumstance. Now, of course, a righteous man would tell the truth under every circumstance, but again, the government is established by the Lord God for the punishment of evildoers, and evildoers lie, so an oath is required of them.

Nonetheless, it is simply a statement to affirm that you will tell the truth in the courtroom. And affirming with 'yes' or 'I will' is no offense against the Lord Jesus Christ. I am sorry if I led to anyone being misinformed on that matter.

The exception I still maintain is that the wedding vows are not good. The reason for this is because, first of all, most people do not take them seriously (i.e. they are hypocrites), and second of all, they are sworn in the name of God's law and the name of God Himself, while also being officiated in the power of the State, not God. Therefore, I am still against have wedding oaths of any kind for born again Christians who are dedicated to the Lord Jesus Christ, but for the world, they have to rely on them because they cannot be trusted.

[anvilhauler]

It would have been interesting to see the reactions and interactions of these people after a few days and they had uttered their oath and they still had not been able to kill Paul.  It seems they didn't know the folly of what they were saying with regards to food either.  Without water they would die within a few days but could go for weeks without food.  Somehow I doubt that these more than forty people starved to death or died of dehydration. 

Acts 23 Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
12 And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. 13 And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy. 14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.

Did they fear the great curse they had brought upon themselves?  I'm thinking that more than likely they shrugged it off and carried on along their way.

[Kenneth Winslow]

I guess what it boils down to is, who the idea of taking an oath or swearing comes from.

Do they come from the Christian or from someone else.
A Christian, in fact, is swearing or making an oath everytime they say, "I will..." or, "Yes..." to do a certain thing.

The evil person says, "I swear to God, I swear to God, I swear to God!", because they are liars. Essentially what they are saying is, "I normally lie, BUT, THIS time I'm actually going to do what I say". That is a heart ❤️ of evil.

When some official asks a Christian to swear an oath he ought be thinking within himself, "Of course I swear. Every time I say "I will", or "I won't" do something it is a solemn oath unto the Lord".

It should not be necessary for a Christian to make oaths or swear to do something. But if the world wants to require it for a particular purpose, okay, fine.
It is basically unnecessary, repetitive and redundant. 

[bluebird724]

So what many Jews would do was take seriously those matters sworn unto God, but in other matters in which they did not swear unto God, they would not care to keep their word, which made them hypocrites and deceivers. It's very similar to when someone says, "Oh yeah, I PROMISE I'll get it done," instead of just saying "I'll get it done." They think the "promise" (i.e. an oath) means that they have to keep it, while if they do not have an oath, then they do not have to take their word seriously.

This is an excellent, important point. The oaths are used as a contract to provide an incentive for a person to make truthful and accurate statements. If that person is found to have made a false or inaccurate statement, then penalties can be applied due to the person's acceptance of that oath (e.g. fines, imprisonment, etc). For as the bible states,

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
- Mark 10:18

[creationliberty]

I am not seeing the connection between what you said and the Scripture you quoted.

I would not call an oath an "incentive," although some might think in that manner, because incentives generally imply a positive motivation to do something, like a reward for good deeds for example. Rather, the oath is solemn declaration of duty under penalty, so I would use the word 'penalty' instead of 'incentive.'

Knowing that we are held accountable for every word we speak, including words spoken in idle times of rest and relaxation, we should take what we say with seriousness at all times, and therefore, no incentive or penalty should be specially applied from one word apart from another, and thus, a man who does so is doing it out of the evil in his heart because, as soon as he swears that oath, he is essentially confessing his own deception.

[bluebird724]

I mentioned Mark 10:18 because unlike God, people are flawed, sinful beings. If God states that He will do something and makes a promise, we know He will keep it. On the other hand, if a man makes a promise, he might keep it or break it. Thus, we have contracts (like in the case of our discussion about oaths).

Oaths, as you mentioned, are a solemn declaration or promise to fulfill an act (such as a testimony). When a person takes an oath and sees the penalties of imprisonment and fines, I think it can act as a sort of incentive for that person to provide truthful and accurate information.

But in generally, I agree with you that we must take what we say with seriousness. Because we live in a sinful, fallen and flawed world, tools such as oaths may sometimes be needed to separate the truth from the lie.

[creationliberty]

Oaths, as you mentioned, are a solemn declaration or promise to fulfill an act (such as a testimony). When a person takes an oath and sees the penalties of imprisonment and fines, I think it can act as a sort of incentive for that person to provide truthful and accurate information.

Did you not understand what I just said?

• You first said that an oath was an incentive.
• I then explained why an incentive was the wrong definition for your meaning.
• You then repeated yourself in your response.

I don't understand what you're trying to do.

incentive: that which moves the mind or operates on the passions; that which incites or has a tendency to incite to determination or action
When you incite someone to do something, you are encouraging them by the promise of reward. That is not what an oath is under any circumstance I have ever seen. That's why, for example, at the end of being sworn into court, they say "So help you God," because if they somehow get away with their lie in court, God is going to punish them, meaning that it is a threat, not an incentive.

threat: declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, loss or pain on another

That is why cults swear oaths that involve punishments; for example, Freemasons. That's why there are punishments involved if a military man disobeys an order, because his oath requires him to do what he is told. I mean, I am assuming everyone else understands this concept, which is why no one else is speaking up to argue against what I'm saying, so I am at a loss to understand why you are struggling to understand this concept.

[bluebird724]

You stated that I did not understand about what you said - have you read what I posted about oaths?

The oaths are used as a contract to provide an incentive for a person to make truthful and accurate statements.

When a person takes an oath and sees the penalties of imprisonment and fines, I think it can act as a sort of incentive for that person to provide truthful and accurate information.

As I mentioned, oaths can provide and act as an incentive, but I do not find myself exclusively and directly defining it as an incentive. More accurately, as you can see with my posts, I have defined it as a contract:

Contract: An agreement, upon sufficient consideration, to do or not to do a particular thing.

Again, I am agreement about your post below and it's why I posted in agreement with it. Nothing more, nothing less:

So what many Jews would do was take seriously those matters sworn unto God, but in other matters in which they did not swear unto God, they would not care to keep their word, which made them hypocrites and deceivers. It's very similar to when someone says, "Oh yeah, I PROMISE I'll get it done," instead of just saying "I'll get it done." They think the "promise" (i.e. an oath) means that they have to keep it, while if they do not have an oath, then they do not have to take their word seriously.

[creationliberty]

Okay, you are not listening to me, and you are just repeating yourself. I'm not going to continue with this. Have a great day.